Check Eden Standalone Environment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide only the title, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the optional 'authenticated endpoint probe' and characterizes it as short, but does not explain potential side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies any state beyond reading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently lists the many checked elements. No wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, the description lacks parameter-probe linkage and usage guidance relative to siblings, leaving some gap in context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter (probe_control) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions an optional probe but never connects it to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess that probe_control=true triggers it. This fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates concrete resources checked: standalone executable, profile, keys/NAND hints, allowed paths, session storage. It also mentions an optional probe, making it distinct from sibling tools like eden_status or eden_get_capabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied as a comprehensive environment check before running a game or session, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided. The description clarifies what is checked but not when to choose this over eden_status or eden_get_capabilities.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.